We don’t lack for topics this week! In today’s episode, Professors Vladeck and Chesney eat a number of cookies while talking about the following:

Rachel Brand steps down at DOJ. As George III might say, what comes next? Your hosts review the order of succession.

A triple update on military commission matters: Was the firing of Convening Authority Harvey Rishikoff linked to a possible plea negotiation with the 9/11 defendants? What’s the deal with the Nashiri trial judge suggesting that the lone remaining defense attorney attend a death penalty training course? And what are the odds that the government goes ahead and transfers Darbi to Saudi Arabia next week?

Next up: Two (formerly) British men who became especially-notorious ISIS members are now in the custody of Syrian Kurds, and the question of how to deal with them for the long term has arisen. Should they go to GTMO? Back to the UK? Face military commission charges? Or capital charges in a regular Article III court?

Doe v. Mattis, the AmCit detainee case, now has two tracks. On one, the D.C. Circuit in early April will have oral argument on the transfer issue. On the other, the issues have now been joined on the merits back at the district court. Spoiler alert: it’s mostly about the 2001 AUMF and the Non-Detention Act.

The #Mehmo and the Schiff Reply: Perhaps social media overreacted a bit to the Trump administration’s refusal to declassify in full the current version of the Schiff Memo. We predict a negotiated outcome resulting in the release of a modified version soon.

Speaking of the Russians…Kaspersky Lab is suing up a storm! Last December they sued DHS alleging a violation of due process when DHS banned federal entities from using Kaspersky products, and now they are suing the United States government as a whole alleging that a similar rule contained in the recent National Defense Authorization Act amounts to a…wait for it…Bill of Attainder. We review both suits, and tell you which one has stronger prospects (relatively speaking).